Activity 3

Vaidhyanathan right or wrong? When he writes that young people engage with digital technologies, “not because they are powerful (which, of course, they are not)”—that these things are basically frivolous—does he undermine the premise that ‘digital natives’ are worthy of study at all?
First, within the Generational Myth article, Jeff Gomez, author of Print Is Dead: Books in Our Digital Age defines the generation of ‘Digital Natives’ as “kids who have grown up with the Internet, and are accustomed to the entire world being only a mouse click away”. Gomez also goes further to state that the traditional forms of print media is not creating a solution to this digital epidemic. Gomez believes that the renaissance of the ‘Digital Natives’ “are going unanswered by the traditional print media like books, magazines, and newspapers. Gomez also states that “for this generation—which Google rather than going to a library—print seems expensive, a bore, and a waste of time”.
Additionally, Vaidhyanathan is not completely true in his statements when he expresses why young people who engage with the digital technologies are not worthy research material. Digital technologies have become a means to convenient communications that require little to no thought process whatsoever. It is important to decipher what pulls the ‘Digital Natives’ to the internet as a source of research and communications than that of your local library and human-to-human interaction.
Gassar’s Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives, “argues that kids today are fundamentally different from the rest of us because their default modes of interaction involve mixing and mashing digital files and exposing (and rewriting) themselves through online profiles and avatars”. With this valuable information and insight, we know that the ‘Digital Natives’ are do not merely embrace digital technologies because it is frivolous and basic in nature. The ‘Digital Natives’ that utilize social sites such as Facebook or Myspace, While Generation X may consider the internet and such sites of little importance, this can be refuted. Such sites can be used as a dynamic tool of networking and marketing. If the ‘Digital Natives’ believed the Internet and other forms of digital technologies were frivolous, would Google exist? Sergey Brin and Larry Page, both 32, are part of this group referred to as ‘Digital Natives’. So, when is said that sources of digital technology is not powerful and frivolous, those opinions may need to be revisited and discussed further. Google was introduced as a digital technology nearly seven years ago with Brin and Page were only 25 years of age. If digital technology was not powerful and frivolous in nature, how could the this digital technology tool become global in such a short span of time? Google has single handed changed the world of global commerce, trade, and communications as we now know it. How could Google, as well as Facebook and Myspace become so popular and widely used on a global scale?
Furthermore, Mark Bauerlin, an English professor at Emory University has voiced his concern of the digital age and the impact it has on young people. In his composition, The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes our Future, Bauerlin states “well if there is one way to ensure that young people do not read more books than necessary, it is to call them dumb in a title of a book”. Bauerlin is absolutely correct in this statement. Instead of focusing and criticizing the ‘Digital Natives” and how digital technology is impeding their intelligence, we should focus on what gravitates the “Digital Natives’ to digital technology instead of print media. We must accept that digital technology is a permanent part of our society and research how various forms of digital technology can be used greater as an educational tool. The ‘Digital Natives’ are definitely worthy of study to determine what digital technology has that more traditional forms of technology such as print lack.
Likewise, Emile Durkheim also embraces the notion of not labeling a group of people who are innate to uses one form of digital technology as opposed to more traditional technologies.
We should drop our simplistic attachments to generations so we can generate an accurate and subtle account of the needs of young people—and all people, for that matter. A more responsible assessment would divorce itself from a pro- or anti-technology agenda and look at multiple causes for problems we note: state malfeasance or benign neglect of education, rampant consumerism in our culture, moral panics that lead us to scapegoat technology, and yes, technology itself. Such work would reflect the fact that technologies do not emerge in a vacuum. They are subject to market forces, political ideologies, and policy incentives. More important, such work would use young people as a fodder for attacking wider social problems.
In conclusion, Emile Durkheim also believes that it is important not label a group of people based upon their technology preference. Instead, it would be more valuable to create research that would perhaps give an accurate assessment of why one group may prefer to utilize certain technology devices n their daily lives. We should research these trends and then transcend them into more important socio schemes. While Vaidhyanathan feels strongly about the Generational Myth, the digital technology ages is here and will not make and exit in the near future. We should respect this tool, and look for ways to modify it to better meet the needs of society.